Discovery 3x07 - 'Unification III' ~~ { ** Spoilers Within ** }

Tired Gardener

Just had a quick look at the how the show scores... I am utterly flabbergasted at these scores.

Season 1
Rotten Tomatoes 82% (72 reviews)
Metacritic 72 (20 reviews)

Sesson 2
Rotten Tomatoes 81% (30 reviews)
Metacritic 72 (10 reviews)

Season 3
Rotten Tomatoes 93% (28 reviews)
Metacritic 74 (7 reviews)

How in the name of all that is holy has it been given this high a score? Are they watching the same show, or have they had a lobotomy before they watched it?

pah

Tired Gardener wrote: »

Just had a quick look at the how the show scores... I am utterly flabbergasted at these scores.

Season 1
Rotten Tomatoes 82% (72 reviews)
Metacritic 72 (20 reviews)

Sesson 2
Rotten Tomatoes 81% (30 reviews)
Metacritic 72 (10 reviews)

Season 3
Rotten Tomatoes 93% (28 reviews)
Metacritic 74 (7 reviews)

How in the name of all that is holy has it been given this high a score? Are they watching the same show, or have they had a lobotomy before they watched it?

The audience score is surely more reflective of the show.

Tired Gardener

pah wrote: »

The audience score is surely more reflective of the show.

Ah, that 44% seems more reasonable.

Smacruairi

I presume the critics find it to be stunning and brave.

TheValeyard

I liked it. But too heavy on Burnham again. But still was a good episode and nice to see Old Spock.


Ni'var makes sense.


Couple of small things are annoying me however, but I'm choosing to overlook them

breezy1985

Does anyone else think going so far into the future kinda spoils the fun for any show set in the 25th to 31st century or am I just getting too picky now

H3llR4iser

breezy1985 wrote: »

Does anyone else think going so far into the future kinda spoils the fun for any show set in the 25th to 31st century or am I just getting too picky now

No, you're onto something here - I'm not sure I'd call it "spoiling the fun", but certainly what it does is casting anything set in the earlier era as a "prequel", with all the issues and pitfalls associated. Now it's "Picard" and the Pike-based show (if it EVER sees the light of day - I am extremely doubtful) which will need to carefully thread the continuity waters, like Discovery had to do earlier on.

breezy1985

H3llR4iser wrote: »

No, you're onto something here - I'm not sure I'd call it "spoiling the fun", but certainly what it does is casting anything set in the earlier era as a "prequel", with all the issues and pitfalls associated. Now it's "Picard" and the Pike-based show (if it EVER sees the light of day - I am extremely doubtful) which will need to carefully thread the continuity waters, like Discovery had to do earlier on.

Would love someone to come along and make a show that absolutely tears apart DIS 32nd century canon and watch it's fans have a meltdown the way many Trek fans are now about DIS

Tired Gardener

breezy1985 wrote: »

Does anyone else think going so far into the future kinda spoils the fun for any show set in the 25th to 31st century or am I just getting too picky now

I think setting it so far into the future of the future means that it allows other Star Trek shows room to breathe without having the setting of STD hindering what they can do.

STD could have been a good addition to the Star Trek universe, if it just allowed other characters to be fleshed out*, got Michael Burnham to speak up a bit, and didn't have every single thing revolve around, and be resolved by Michael Burnham.

Hopefully season 4 addresses these.

*I can't name the bridge crew, other than 2 members. Saru, Michael Burnham, and... the alien with the massive head, the white lass with the thing on her head, the white lass with blonde hair, the black lass with braids, the black guy with facial hair, and the Chinese guy.

They have so little lines of dialogue and their names are said so infrequently I can't recall them. They aren't characters, they are human props.

Baggly

I was looking back at S1 and you had Lorca barking commands and saying peoples names in each and every battle.

They werent developed much as characters by then (there were others being established) but at least you knew their names.

breezy1985

Baggly wrote: »

I was looking back at S1 and you had Lorca barking commands and saying peoples names in each and every battle.

They werent developed much as characters by then (there were others being established) but at least you knew their names.

I knew Owo, Detmer and Ariam and now Nillson but I only know Detmer and Nillson are lieutenants and don't know the rank of the other 2. Could not tell you what any of their uniform colours are.
I don't know the name, rank or job of the high five guys

silverharp

Baggly wrote: »

I was looking back at S1 and you had Lorca barking commands and saying peoples names in each and every battle.

They werent developed much as characters by then (there were others being established) but at least you knew their names.

good observation! I can picture Kirk saying "Spock "Bones" "Sulu" or Picard similar. I could only name about 3 or 4 characters in Discovery

AlmightyCushion

The only reason I know most of the names I know is from reading these threads. If it wasn't for that I would only know Saru, St Michael, Tilly and Georgiou. Maybe Staments. Think that is it.

Baggly

My working theory is they killed off or moved on lots of interesting people and instead of developing the crew to fill the gap, they are filling it with one off characters (which is gonna happen since they are in a whole new galaxy basically) and extra Burnham.

The series is already made, so its not an easy immediate fix, but longer term, its an easy fix to actual develop the characters that you have on the ship already.

ilovesmybrick

breezy1985 wrote: »

I don't know the name, rank or job of the high five guys

Honestly I can't make out anyones ranks. Those pips on the badges are impossible for me to make out. While I like the uniforms overall I do think they need pips/shoulder bars/wrist piping or something to make the ranks clearer. I don't know if the problem is just that they're too small, or that the colours don't contrast for me enough.

Stark

They're tiny. I can just about make them out in hi-rez closeups.

breezy1985

ilovesmybrick wrote: »

Honestly I can't make out anyones ranks. Those pips on the badges are impossible for me to make out. While I like the uniforms overall I do think they need pips/shoulder bars/wrist piping or something to make the ranks clearer. I don't know if the problem is just that they're too small, or that the colours don't contrast for me enough.

I really wish they used traditional colours for the side bits rather than the shiny colours

Banana Republic 1

Tired Gardener wrote: »

Just had a quick look at the how the show scores... I am utterly flabbergasted at these scores.

Season 1
Rotten Tomatoes 82% (72 reviews)
Metacritic 72 (20 reviews)

Sesson 2
Rotten Tomatoes 81% (30 reviews)
Metacritic 72 (10 reviews)

Season 3
Rotten Tomatoes 93% (28 reviews)
Metacritic 74 (7 reviews)

How in the name of all that is holy has it been given this high a score? Are they watching the same show, or have they had a lobotomy before they watched it?

The anti YouTubers have said for some time now rotten tomatoes has been bought and paid for. The crowd ratings say more about films generally nowadays I find.

Banana Republic 1

breezy1985 wrote: »

Would love someone to come along and make a show that absolutely tears apart DIS 32nd century canon and watch it's fans have a meltdown the way many Trek fans are now about DIS

The Orville

breezy1985

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

The Orville

No I mean specifically mess with Discoverys history like ignoring the burn or having the Romulans kill all the Vulcans or something

GreeBo

breezy1985 wrote: »

No I mean specifically mess with Discoverys history like ignoring the burn or having the Romulans kill all the Vulcans or something

I think that by the time a new ST series is made about that timeline, everyone will have agreed to just forget Discovery ever happened and they will be free to do what they want.

~Rebel~

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

The anti YouTubers have said for some time now rotten tomatoes has been bought and paid for. The crowd ratings say more about films generally nowadays I find.

Definitely worth keeping in mind though that the RT rating doesn’t mean reviewers think it’s a 93% show - it means 93% of reviewers think it’s worth a watch. If they all gave it 6.5 out of 10 for instance, it would have a 100% rating.

Still seems high, but that’s an important distinction... and we’re not really ones to argue, given that we’re all still watching for better or worse, so if we were reviewers we’d in theory be adding to that figure as obviously for one reason or another we’ve considered it worth watching.

GreeBo

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Definitely worth keeping in mind though that the RT rating doesn’t mean reviewers think it’s a 93% show - it means 93% of reviewers think it’s worth a watch. If they all gave it 6.5 out of 10 for instance, it would have a 100% rating.

Still seems high, but that’s an important distinction... and we’re not really ones to argue, given that we’re all still watching for better or worse, so if we were reviewers we’d be adding to that figure.

Good point.
I think its worth a watch, only if you are into Star Trek, but its not going to grow a new audience. (and may even weaken the old one!)
Say what you will about the Abrams films, they were "good" enough to get non ST fans to watch them.

~Rebel~

GreeBo wrote: »

Good point.
I think its worth a watch, only if you are into Star Trek, but its not going to grow a new audience. (and may even weaken the old one!)
Say what you will about the Abrams films, they were "good" enough to get non ST fans to watch them.

That's my sole reason for watching it at this stage, but I really do think it's made for non-Trek fans, even moreso now than earlier seasons. For 12-20 year olds with a vague idea of what Trek is, but without actually having watched much of it beyond maybe the new movies. And the kind of people who watch it as entertainment, but don't show up on forums etc as they're just not that bothered either way. It's just another tv show. My nephews and niece all fall into this category and enjoy it (they also really loved Picard). For them it's equivalent to Arrow, or The Flash and stuff like that. I tried to get them to watch some TNG - it did not go well. Bored out of their trees!

Banana Republic 1

~Rebel~ wrote: »

That's my sole reason for watching it at this stage, but I really do think it's made for non-Trek fans, even moreso now than earlier seasons. For 12-20 year olds with a vague idea of what Trek is, but without actually having watched much of it beyond maybe the new movies. And the kind of people who watch it as entertainment, but don't show up on forums etc as they're just not that bothered either way. It's just another tv show. My nephews and niece all fall into this category and enjoy it (they also really loved Picard). For them it's equivalent to Arrow, or The Flash and stuff like that. I tried to get them to watch some TNG - it did not go well. Bored out of their trees!

Perhaps it’s just a reflection of the fast gratification culture. But does that mean that that audience don’t watch shows like mindhunter or things of that nature.

breezy1985

~Rebel~ wrote: »

That's my sole reason for watching it at this stage, but I really do think it's made for non-Trek fans, even moreso now than earlier seasons. For 12-20 year olds with a vague idea of what Trek is, but without actually having watched much of it beyond maybe the new movies. And the kind of people who watch it as entertainment, but don't show up on forums etc as they're just not that bothered either way. It's just another tv show. My nephews and niece all fall into this category and enjoy it (they also really loved Picard). For them it's equivalent to Arrow, or The Flash and stuff like that. I tried to get them to watch some TNG - it did not go well. Bored out of their trees!

You are right in mentioning the Flash and Arrow. There is definitely a super hero influence in DIS

~Rebel~

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

Perhaps it’s just a reflection of the fast gratification culture. But does that mean that that audience don’t watch shows like mindhunter or things of that nature.

It's just a different audience. I think they have consciously moved Discovery towards a CW audience, and when you look at the writing staff, that fits. Particularly in making Michelle Paradise showrunner - she's definitively a CW writer, having already exec-producer another CW show. She's who you go for if you want a mainstream teenage audience and a very different tone to traditional trek, with more sass and drama.

I'm not sure what you mean with the Mindhunter comparison... but no, that's not the type of audience they're appealing to. The Mindhunter audience is 20+. I'm sure plenty of people also watch both... I watch both... but they're appealing to different core markets and providing different products.

H3llR4iser

~Rebel~ wrote: »

That's my sole reason for watching it at this stage, but I really do think it's made for non-Trek fans, even moreso now than earlier seasons. For 12-20 year olds with a vague idea of what Trek is, but without actually having watched much of it beyond maybe the new movies. And the kind of people who watch it as entertainment, but don't show up on forums etc as they're just not that bothered either way. It's just another tv show. My nephews and niece all fall into this category and enjoy it (they also really loved Picard). For them it's equivalent to Arrow, or The Flash and stuff like that. I tried to get them to watch some TNG - it did not go well. Bored out of their trees!

That's a common view and I got to agree with it - plus, most of the praise I hear about DIS comes from people who indeed were "not much into Star Trek" before it.



I guess that if you look at it with a "clean slate", as a "generic dystopian sci-fi show" and not Trek, then it would easily stand on its own two legs, even with the utter focus around one character - it'd be the central part of the story. I would still not really like it (too much drama, too much romance, too much touchy-feely-teary stuff, too little lore), but I've seen much worse...

breezy1985 wrote: »

You are right in mentioning the Flash and Arrow. There is definitely a super hero influence in DIS

That's a funny one. I've tried and tried again with these - I just can't stand them. None of the "Arrowverse" series strikes me as "superhero" shows, rather as "romance heavy teenage girl flicks that happen to be in the DC universe".

breezy1985

H3llR4iser wrote: »

I guess that if you look at it with a "clean slate", as a "generic dystopian sci-fi show" and not Trek, then it would easily stand on its own two legs, even with the utter focus around one character - it'd be the central part of the story. I would still not really like it (too much drama, too much romance, too much touchy-feely-teary stuff, too little lore), but I've seen much worse...

This is one of my big problems not just with DIS but the industry in general where everything has to be attached to a name. Take is Bond post Bourne or JJTrek where you make such a big deal about how you want it to be nothing like what came before and are clearly trying to make it mimic other things.
If your goal is to do something different just do it and don't piggyback on a name

~Rebel~

breezy1985 wrote: »

This is one of my big problems not just with DIS but the industry in general where everything has to be attached to a name. Take is Bond post Bourne or JJTrek where you make such a big deal about how you want it to be nothing like what came before and are clearly trying to make it mimic other things.
If your goal is to do something different just do it and don't piggyback on a name

You're absolutely right - but ultimately it's mainstream viewers that are pretty much to blame, in that it's the trend of viewers to be more likely flock to things they know and ignore things they don't that has caused the studios/networks to lean that direction in their content. They primarily exist to make products that make money, so they'll do whatever the audience wants.

A lot of it I think boils down to how much the mainstream audience wants to be challenged. There are times when the audience en-masse primarily veers towards easier content, and there are times when it pushes to things of greater substance, and it often relates to the state of the national/international mood.

It's easier to see in film, because of the 'event' nature of going to/watching a movie, and also the larger budget, letting you see what studios are putting their money behind. For example you had a decade or two of mostly fluff and lighter films in theatres, before the latter exhausting stages of vietnam and suddenly the fluff felt 'wrong', and there was a massive audience shift to more relevant substantial film and we got a golden age of grittier movies in the 70's and 80's. Which has since gradually moved back towards easier content where you can step back into a world already knowing how it works. It doesn't exactly translate to TV as you're dealing with a much wider market with room for much more product so there's always niches to appeal to, but it's still pretty accurate when you're looking at where bigger budgets go.

To your point, they're trying to balance name recognition to justify a budget, with also trying to market a 'new' product that's easily consumable to draw people in.

(that was quite a ramble... sorry!)